Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the fifth report of the 2008 Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Report No. 5 of 2008

(1)

The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 17 June 2008 at 12.49 pm.

(2)

The committee resolved to recommend—That—

(a)

the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Committee for inquiry and report by 24 June 2008 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b)

the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2008 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 24 June 2008;

(c)

the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Feed-in-Tariff) Bill 2008 be referred immediately to the Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee for inquiry and report by 14 October 2008 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(d)

the Tax Laws Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2008 be referred immediately to the Economics Committee for inquiry and report by 24 June 2008; and

(e)

the Unit Pricing (Easy comparison of grocery prices) Bill 2008 be referred immediately to the Economics Committee for inquiry and report by 2 September 2008 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral).

(3)

The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:

• Commonwealth Securities and Investment Legislation Amendment Bill 2008
• Crimes Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2008
• Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco Content) Bill 2008
• Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Bill 2008
• Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008
• Dental Benefits Bill 2008
• Dental Benefits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008
• Evidence Amendment Bill 2008
• Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008
• Farm Household Support Amendment (Additional Drought Assistance Measures) Bill 2008
• First Home Saver Accounts Bill 2008
• First Home Saver Accounts (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008
• Health Care (Appropriation) Amendment Bill 2008
• Higher Education Support Amendment (2008 Budget Measures) Bill 2008
• Income Tax (First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax) Bill 2008
• Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Transitional) Bill 2008
• Income Tax (Managed Investment Trust Withholding Tax) Bill 2008
• Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 2008
• Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment (2008 Budget Measures) Bill 2008
• Judiciary Amendment Bill 2008
• Law Officers Legislation Amendment Bill 2008
• National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2008
• Parliamentary (Judicial Misbehaviour or Incapacity) Commission Bill 2007 [2008]
• Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2008
• Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Employment Entry Payment) Bill 2008
• Tax Laws Amendment (Election Commitments No. 1) Bill 2008
• Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2008

The committee recommends accordingly.

(4)

The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

• A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Customs) Amendment Bill 2008
• A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Excise) Amendment Bill 2008
• A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—General) Amendment Bill 2008
• Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2008
• Excise Legislation Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2008
• Excise Tariff Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2008
• National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill 2008
• National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008
• National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical and Other Benefits—Cost Recovery) Bill 2008
• Plastic Bag Levy (Assessment and Collection) Bill 2002 [2008]
• Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008
• Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 3) Bill 2008
• Tax Laws Amendment (Luxury Car Tax) Bill 2008
• Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy Surcharge Thresholds) Bill 2008
• Trade Practices (Creeping Acquisitions) Amendment Bill 2007 [2008]

(Kerry O’Brien)

Chair

18 June 2008

Appendix 1

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (2008) budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The effect of changes in schedule 6 to the income definition for Family Tax Benefit A and B and the Child Care Benefit to include the reportable fringe benefit total of an employee. This change will particularly affect employees working for public benevolent institutions.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

The Charities Tax Advisory Service

Charity organisations such as

St Vincent de Paul

Red Cross

The Salvation Army

Australian Council of Social Services

Australian Services Union

Catholic Health Australia

St John Ambulance Australia

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Community Affairs

Possible hearing date(s): 20 June 2008

Possible reporting date: 5 June 2008

Appendix 2

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Feed-in-Tariff) fii1 2008

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

This Bill has significant implications the renewable energy sector, existing electricity generators and retailers, and the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Existing and potential wind, solar PV, solar thermal, geothermal, biomass and wave generators.

Existing electricity generators, electricity retailers and the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator.

Energy sector experts/ academics, including international experts familiar with kV!, Legislation abroad.

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Environment, Communication and the Arts Committee

Possible hearing date(s): August 2008

Possible reporting date: Early October

Appendix 3

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Unit Pricing (Easy comparison of grocery prices) Bill 2008

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Family First introduced the Unit Pricing (Easy Comparison of Grocery Prices) Bill 2008 to save families  money by making it mandatory for supermarkets to display a per unit price, such as per kilogram or per litre, on all grocery items sold.

A recent Family First survey uncovered that in one supermarket:

• a Pauls 3 litre milk container was actually more expensive per litre than a Pauls 2 litre milk container
• a Coles lkg tin of fruit salad was .32% more expensive per kg than the smaller 825g
• a 600g jar of Vegemite costs 50% more per kilogram than the 150g jar.

The cost of. food a big part of every family’s budget and unit pricing will help Australians save money at the checkout. By making it mandatory for supermarkets to display unit pricing on grocery items it will provide families with fair and transparent pricing so they can get the best value for their dollar. It is often hard to calculate which items are cheapest with different sizing making quick and easy comparison difficult on a busy shopping day. The bill sets out a der\tailed national, unit pricing scheme. An inquiry would allow feedback from families, community groups and industry.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Consumer Action Law Centre, Coles, Choice, Aldi, Queensland Consumers Association, Australian Retail Association, Woolworths, National Association of Retail Grocers (NARGA) and various others such as welfare, consumer and community advocate groups.

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Economics Committee

Possible hearing date(s): 18 and 19 August 2008

Possible reporting date: 2 September 2008

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to move an amendment to the Selection of Bills report. I will just reach for a copy of the report.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here it comes now, Senator Parry.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can move mine first, Mr Deputy President.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Parry, if you are deferring to Senator Ludwig, I will give Senator Ludwig the call.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move that the following amendment to the amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report by 2 September 2008—

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just a bit confused. You cannot move an amendment to an amendment.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I dropped that out.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are amending the report?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did say that, ultimately.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did say you were moving an amendment to the amendment. You are not moving an amendment to the report?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps I could say it again: I move the following amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is in order.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

At the end of the motion, add “and, in respect of the Evidence Amendment Bill 2008, the provisions of the bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 2 September 2008”.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is in respect of the evidence bill.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludwig has now moved his amendment.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Parry interjecting—

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Parry, this is real musical chairs. It is becoming very confusing in the running of the debate in the chamber.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that, Mr Deputy President. I seek leave just to make a brief statement.

Leave granted.

I do apologise to the chamber. The amendment was put on my colleague’s desk. We will be opposing the amendment by Senator Ludwig and we will be proposing an amendment that will read that ‘it report not before 25 September 2008’, for the same bill. I just foreshadow that, and I know you have an amendment before the chamber.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that as foreshadowing an amendment. We need to deal with Senator Ludwig’s amendment first. I call Senator Ludwig.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy President. I do not want to make it any more confusing than it is, but the situation is this. The Selection of Bills Committee report would be amended by the opposition to refer the Evidence Amendment Bill 2008 to a committee to report at the date that Senator Parry outlined, as I understand it. The government will not oppose the reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, but we do think that a report at the end of September is unacceptable. We think an earlier reporting date would be preferable, and that is 2 September 2008.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendment before the chair at this stage is Senator Ludwig’s amendment for a reporting date of 2 September.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I say that the opposition did try to sort this out with the minister’s office. We asked for a reporting date of 25 September simply because, although this legislation is not controversial in a party-political sense, it is extremely complex legislation which proposes alterations to the rules of evidence in 11 particular respects. It is my view that, in order to do the scrutiny of the bill justice, it is necessary for that committee, which is already burdened with other weighty inquiries in the near future, to have a little more time.

This is not intrinsically urgent. The uniform evidence legislation arises from a report of the Australian Law Reform Commission which was delivered in 2006. It is not credible to say that any mischief would be done by the postponement of the operation of the amendments to the Evidence Act by another three weeks in order to give the Senate the opportunity to scrutinise what are very technical amendments, which have attracted not a lot of public comment but a great deal of attention from the bar and the professional associations, who will no doubt want to make submissions to the inquiry and have them considered properly.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to say that the Democrats do not have a problem with the proposed longer inquiry. I do not think anyone has actually sought our views or felt a need to liaise with us, given that this is an issue post 1 July, but I would like to acknowledge that we have had some concerns with some of the matters that are contained within that legislation. I think it was initially popped into the non-controversial legislation category and was due to be debated on Thursday of this week. So we are glad to see this referred to committee. Obviously it is much of a muchness now as to whether or not it reports as proposed by the government or indeed by the opposition, but I do not think a few extra weeks would be a particular problem. Having said that, I will not be there to do the debate, but I am actually very glad that we are not going to be dealing with this through a ‘non-controversial’ lunchtime period, because I think that the legislation deserves more analysis, more scrutiny and potentially some debate and amendment.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I will just make a few short comments about this bill in response. The government are clearly of the view that we would prefer to have the bill dealt with in non-controversial legislative time and the bill pass by 1 July. There is no mistake about our position on that. Faced with the position that the opposition do not agree with that and have shifted the date to some time late in September, we took the opportunity of arguing, as we are doing now, that an earlier reporting date would at least make the legislation available earlier.

The reason is that the Evidence Amendment Bill 2008 is, in truth, largely technical in nature. A number of amendments have been made to address developments in case law. The bill also seeks to promote harmonisation in evidence law between Australian jurisdictions. The bill is based on the model evidence bill endorsed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, SCAG, in July 2007.

Considering the nature of the proposed amendments and the consultation processes that were conducted to develop the evidence reforms to this point, the referral, in our view, is not warranted. The consultation included an 18-month review on the operation of the uniform evidence laws regime, conducted by the Australian, Victorian and New South Wales law reform commissions. That is the 2005 ALRC report Uniform evidence law. The Law Reform Commission found no major structural problems with the evidence acts or with the underlying policy and made recommendations to finetune the evidence acts. Numerous consultations were held in every state and territory, and 130 written submissions were considered.

Commonwealth, state and territory jurisdictions worked cooperatively to develop a model evidence bill to implement a majority of the Law Reform Commission recommendations. During the development of the model evidence bill, an expert reference group provided advice on the model bill. New South Wales have already enacted changes to the Evidence Act 1995 based on the SCAG endorsed model evidence bill and are waiting for the Commonwealth bill to be passed before they can commence their act.

There may be some comment from the opposition that this bill does not address the implementation of a general confidential relationship of privilege beyond journalists or the provision extending client legal privilege and public interest immunity to pre-trial hearings. Of course, it is appropriate that the government consider these issues relating to privilege as it develops its response to the Australian Law Reform Commission report Privilege in perspective, which was tabled earlier this year. Journalist shield laws are also being considered separately by the government.

The extension of the compellability provisions to same-sex couples may attract, as we have seen today, some attention. These issues are in fact better examined in the context of the examination of the second same-sex relationships bill 2008, relating to the removal of same-sex discriminatory references in a variety of Commonwealth laws. I thought it was worthwhile putting that in context for the opposition, particularly the shadow Attorney-General, to help them understand our position. We do not agree to the reference. However, faced with the reality of the numbers in this place, we are trying to seek cooperation to find at least an early reporting date so that we can meet the New South Wales requirements and they can bring their legislation into place. I understand the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs does have a heavy workload. I have served on that committee in the past and it is not unusual for it to have a heavy workload. That is recognised. I am confident that the legal and constitutional committee can adequately deal with this in the time available to ensure that the New South Wales laws are not unduly delayed.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before we proceed, is it easier if we proceed by way of the consideration of Senator Ludwig’s amendment to allow you to move your amendment, Senator Parry, or do you want to speak in the debate? I am not trying to curb the debate. What looms as the easiest way?

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I was just going to make a simple explanation, if I can, in relation to the comments of Senator Ludwig. It is just important to note that our Selection of Bills Committee meeting on 17 June this week was moved to a different timeslot. We were rushed out of the chamber to a meeting. We considered some 42 pieces of legislation at that meeting. When you are dealing with that much legislation, sometimes the scrutiny of every individual piece of legislation is not what it should be. The particular bill was originally listed in the non-controversial portion of the report but, after examination and reflection after the meeting, we came to the conclusion that it needs to be referred, as we have discussed. I just wanted to set the background as to why it was not dealt with in the Selection of Bills Committee meeting in the first instance.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—This should never have been thought to be a non-controversial piece of legislation merely because, as I said before, it might not be controversial in a party-political sense. It certainly needs detailed scrutiny for the very reasons Senator Ludwig adverted to—that is, it is a highly technical bill. A bill that affects the conduct of criminal and civil trials in relation to a range of important evidentiary rules is of the first importance. Senator Ludwig, who represents the Attorney-General in this chamber, may not be aware that the bill has been heavily criticised in some respects by, for example, the New South Wales Bar Association. Given the far-reaching effect upon the liberties of the subject and the conduct of the judicial system of some of the recommendations of the ALRC which are adopted by this legislation, it is the very sort of bill which needs proper scrutiny by this chamber. Nothing that has come from Senator Ludwig has persuaded me that there is any time line or deadline, whether emanating from New South Wales or any other jurisdiction, which necessitates consideration earlier than a reporting date of 25 September.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I have been very tolerant of the debate backwards and forwards. I think we should really crystallise this debate by putting Senator Ludwig’s amendment.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have actually gotten out of order. I need to withdraw my amendment, though it was nevertheless important to have this debate to set out our position. I will withdraw my amendment so that Senator Parry can put his amendment. We can then at least set the record straight for the Clerk of the Senate. I am sure he would be pleased if we do that.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are withdrawing your amendment, Senator Ludwig?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am. We will simply vote against Senator Parry’s amendment.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted to withdraw?

Leave is granted.

Unanimity has broken out!

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As an amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report that we are considering now, I move:

At the end of the motion, add “and, in respect of the Evidence Amendment Bill 2008, the provisions of the bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report not before 25 September 2008”.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O’Brien, you can now close the debate.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I trust that I will not cause someone to seek leave to speak again in this debate. It has almost been a debate by leave. The reality is that this report, which I presented, has been circulated for some time. You will see that in item 3, the Evidence Amendment Bill 2008 is clearly delineated as a bill that is not to be referred to committees. The process of the committee was to go through the bills and ask for a determination that a bill be referred, not be referred or be deferred. So there are three options in that process. There was a very clear decision that this bill not be referred. That does not deal in any way with the rights of any senator to request that a bill not be dealt with in non-controversial legislation time. That is a different question.

I understand that it was communicated to the government that the opposition were happy to have this bill dealt with in that time this Thursday. I see Senator Brandis is shaking his head, but that is the information that I believe had been conveyed to the government. There may have been a breakdown in communication somewhere, but the reality is that the committee’s report is an accurate reflection of the meeting of the committee and that, at no stage during the meeting of the committee, was it suggested in any way that this bill might be referred or deferred. My recollection is that it was determined that it not be referred. Clearly very late in the piece, someone’s attention has been drawn to concerns which may have existed before the meeting but certainly were not drawn to the attention of the meeting. For the purposes of the processing of legislation before the committee, one can accept that from time to time matters slip through unnoticed but, on the other hand, there is a responsibility on all parties to bring to the meeting a position on what they wish to be done with legislation. That is so that, when this report comes before the chamber, we do not get into this sort of situation. That is so that it is an accurate reflection of the parties’ positions in relation to legislation so that the Selection of Bills Committee report can be adopted and we can process the necessary references and determine that bills not be referred in the way that is normally the process.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that Senator Parry seeks leave. It is a bit unusual.

Leave granted.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the chamber’s indulgence. I will be very brief. Senator O’Brien is correct. The way the committee report reflects it is accurate. However, I did indicate that the committee time had changed. Due scrutiny of the entire list is a little bit more problematic when the committee time changes at short notice. There were over 40 matters discussed at that committee meeting. To have everyone digest and understand the complexities of each of those pieces of legislation or those bills is difficult in itself. I indicate that the Greens and the Democrats were also present at that meeting and did not raise any issue with that particular bill. The complexity of that particular bill had escaped the notice of all parties. I want to just indicate that, whilst we like to facilitate the processes in the best way we can, we have had a slightly disrupted week for a variety of reasons. That committee was one of those occasions, with a change of time and a large volume of bills to be considered.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.